-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
deprecate insecure WebSockets (ws) #1830
Comments
How exactly would a deprecation look like? There are two options:
(1) has the advantage that this is something that the user controls. (2) is out of the user's control, since the node will dial ws addresses, if other nodes advertise those. |
I'd definitely do 1, that's the simplest. Once it has been deprecated for a while, we can remove it from the defaults. IMO, if users are using the defaults, they're opting in to using whatever we decide to provide. Note, there is a use-case for insecure websockets: corporate firewalls with mandated MITM proxies. However, given that almost nobody listens on insecure websockets, that's probably moot. |
Can we start printing the deprecation warning as soon as |
I'm wondering if we should deprecate (insecure) WebSocket support:
If I understand the issue that prompted this PR correctly, this problem wouldn't exist if we just used the SNI we use in the TLS handshake for the Host header in the WebSocket CONNECT HTTP request. We don't set the Host header currently, but that would be a much smaller fix than adding a new multiaddr component.
The values for TLS SNI and the HTTP Host Header are always identical, unless you're doing some form of domain fronting. I'd be ok with leaving that fringe use case unsupported for now.
Originally posted by @marten-seemann in #1829 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: